Andrew Miller · 7 of 28

Chapter 4 · Part 2

A mother’s jealousy and her sons’ ambition lead Salome to ask for very distinguished places in the kingdom for her two sons. The Lord allowed the petition to pass with a very mild reproof, but told the brothers that they should drink of His cup, and be baptised with His baptism. James was early called upon to realize this prediction. After the ascension he is seen in company with the other apostles in Acts 1. Then he disappears from the sacred narrative until his apprehension and death in Acts 12. And there we are simply told, in the brief language of the inspired historian, that Herod the king killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Clement of Alexandria relates a tradition concerning James’s martyrdom, which is not an unlikely thing to have occurred. As he was led forth to the place of execution, the soldier or officer that had guarded him to the tribunal, or rather his accuser, was so moved by the courage and bold confession of James at the time of his trial, that he repented of what he had done, and came and fell down at the apostle’s feet, and begged forgiveness for what he had said against him. James, after a little surprise at the thing, raised him up, embraced and kissed him; and said, “Peace, my son, peace be to thee, and the pardon of thy faults.” Whereupon, before all, he publicly professed himself to be a Christian, and so both were beheaded at the same time. Thus fell James, the apostolic proto-martyr, cheerfully taking that cup which he had long since told his Lord that he was ready to drink of.

JOHN was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and the younger brother of James. Though his father was a fisherman it appears from the Gospel narrative that they were in good circumstances. Some of the ancients speak of the family as wealthy, and even as nobly connected. But these traditions are not reconcilable with the facts of scripture. We read, however, of their “hired servants,” and they may have owned more vessels than one. And Salome, we doubt not, was one of those honoured women who ministered to the Lord of her substance. And John had a house of his own. (Luke 8:3; and John 19:27) We may safely infer from these facts that their position was considerably above poverty. As many have gone to extremes in speaking of the apostles as poor and illiterate, we think it well to notice the few hints of scripture on these subjects.

Of the character of Zebedee we know nothing. He made no objection to his sons leaving him at the call of the Messiah. But we hear no more of him afterwards. We frequently find the mother in company with her sons, but no mention of the father. The probability is that he died soon after the call of his sons.

The evangelist Mark, in enumerating the twelve apostles (Mark 3:17), when he mentions James and John, says that our Lord “surnamed them Boanerges, which is, Sons of Thunder.” What our Lord particularly intended to convey in this title, is not easily determined. Conjectures there have been many. Some suppose that it was because these two brothers were of a more furious and resolute disposition, and of a more fierce and fiery temper than the rest of the apostles. But we see no ground for such a conjecture in the Gospel history. Doubtless, on one or two occasions their zeal was intemperate, but that was before they understood the spirit of their calling. More probably our Lord so surnamed them, as prophetic of their burning zeal in openly and boldly proclaiming the great truths of the gospel, after they became fully acquainted with them. Certain we are, that John in company with Peter, in the early chapters of the Acts, displayed a courage that feared no threatenings, and was daunted by no opposition.

John is supposed to have been the youngest of all the apostles; and, judging from his writings he appears to have been possessed of a disposition singularly affectionate, mild, and amiable. He was characterised as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” On various occasions he was admitted to free and intimate communication with the Lord. (John 13)

“What distinguished John,” says Neander, “was the union of the most opposite qualities, as we have often observed in great instruments of the advancement of the kingdom of God —the union of a disposition inclined to silent and deep meditation, with an ardent zeal, though not impelling to great and diversified activity in the outward world; not a passionate zeal, such as we suppose filled the breast of Paul before his conversion. But there was also a love, not soft and yielding, but one seizing with all its might, and firmly retaining the object to which it was directed —vigorously repelling whatever would disgrace this object, or attempt to wrest it from its possession; and this was his leading characteristic.”

As the history of John is so intimately connected with the histories of Peter and James, which we have already gone over, we may now be very brief. These three names are seldom separated in the Gospel history. But there is one scene in which John stands alone, and which ought to be noted. He was the only apostle who followed Jesus to the place of His crucifixion. And there he was specially honoured with the regard and confidence of his Master. “When Jesus therefore saw his mother and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son; then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” (John 19:26, 27.)

After the ascension of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, John became one of the chief apostles of the circumcision. But his ministry goes down to the end of the first century. With his death the apostolic age naturally closes.

There is a widely spread and generally received tradition that John remained in Judæa till after the death of the Virgin Mary. The date of this event is uncertain, but soon after he proceeded to Asia Miner. Here he planted and watched over several churches in different cities, but made Ephesus his centre. Thence he was banished to the Isle of Patmos towards the close of Domitian’s reign. There he wrote the Revelation. (Chap. 1:9) On his liberation from exile, by the accession of Nerva to the imperial throne, John returned to Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and Epistles. He died about A.D. 100 in the third year of the emperor Trajan, and about one hundred years of age.

From the many traditions about John himself, we select only one, which we think the most interesting, and the most likely to be true. As one who was unwearied in his love and care for the souls of men, he was deeply grieved by the apostasy of a young man in whom he had taken a special interest. When revisiting the place where he left him, he heard that he had joined a band of robbers and had become their captain. His love for him was so great that he determined to find him out. He hastened to the retreat of the robbers, suffered himself to be seized, and begged to be taken into their captain’s presence. When he saw the venerable appearance of the aged apostle, his conscience was awakened. The recollection of earlier days was more than he could stand, and he fled in consternation from his presence. But John, full of paternal love, hastened after him. He entreated him to repent and return to the church, and encouraged him by the assurance of the forgiveness of his sins in the name of the Lord Jesus. His marvellous affection for the young man and his deep concern for his soul, completely overcame him. He repented, returned, was restored, and afterwards became a worthy member of the Christian community. May we seek to do likewise in restoring backsliders!

We now come to what we may call the second group of four apostles; and, just as Peter heads the first group, the second is headed by;

PHILIP. In the first three Gospels he is placed in this order. He is mentioned as being of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. (John 1:44) It is more than probable that he was among the Galileans of that district who flocked to hear the preaching of John the Baptist. Though no part of Palestine was spoken of in such terms of reproach as Galilee, it was from these despised but simple, earnest, and devoted Galileans that our Lord chose His apostles. “Search and look,” said the Pharisees, “for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” But sweeping statements, generally speaking, are untrue. “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” is a sample of their character.

Nothing is said in the Gospel history of Philip’s parents or occupation. Most likely he was a fisherman, the general trade of that place. From the similarity of language used by Philip and Andrew, and their being repeatedly mentioned together, we may conclude that our apostle, and the sons of Jonas and Zebedee, were intimate friends, and that they were all looking and waiting for the expected Messiah. But in the whole circle of our Lord’s disciples Philip has the honour of being first called. The first three had come to Christ, and conversed with Him before Philip, but afterwards they returned to their occupation, and were not called to follow the Lord for about a year after. But Philip was called at once. “The day following,” we read, “Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.” These words, so full of meaning and rich blessing to the soul, “Follow me,” (we believe) were first said to Philip. When the twelve were specially set apart for their office, he was numbered among them.

Immediately after his call, he finds Nathanael and leads him to Jesus. It is evident, (from the glad surprise resulting from this information) that the two had spoken of these things before. His heart was now well assured of their truth; hence the joy expressed in these words, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” There is an evident earnest heartedness about Philip, though little is said of him in the Gospels. Our last interview with him, like the first, is deeply interesting. Having heard the Lord repeatedly refer to His Father in John 12, 13, and 14, he manifested a strong desire to know more of the Father. The prophetic words of our Lord about His Father appear to have made a deep impression on his heart, and little wonder. “Father, save me from this hour;” “Father, glorify thy name;” “In my Father’s house are many mansions;” are sayings which, we doubt not, sank deep in all the disciples’ hearts. But there is a beautiful simplicity about Philip, though lacking in intelligence. “Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” There is evident reproof, if not reproach, in the Lord’s reply to Philip. “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long a time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” There had been the revelation of the Father in His own Person, and he ought to have known Him. He had now been a long time with His disciples, and they ought to have seen that He was in the Father, and the Father in Him, and thus have known where He was going, for He was going to the Father. They had both the “words” and the “works” of the Son, to convince them that the Father dwelt in Him. They had heard His words, they had seen His works, they had witnessed His character; and these things were fitted and intended to bring the Father before them. His own Person was the answer to every question. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” He was the way —the only way to the Father. He was the truth; the truth as to every one and everything, as they are, is only known by Him. He is the life —“that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” But it is only by the teaching and power of the Spirit that he who is “the way, the truth, and the life,” is known and enjoyed. And there must be subjection of heart to Christ, if we would know the teaching of the Spirit.

After this deeply interesting and instructive conversation with the Lord, all is uncertain as to Philip’s history —his name disappears from the Gospel narrative. He has his own place in the catalogue. (Acts 1:13)

Tradition has so frequently confounded Philip the evangelist with Philip the apostle, that all is uncertain. No doubt his remaining years were spent in devoted service to his Lord and Saviour, but where, it is difficult to say. Some think that Upper Asia was the scene of his early labours, and that in the latter period of his life he came to Hierapolis in Phrygia, where he suffered a cruel martyrdom.

BARTHOLOMEW. It has been very generally believed, both by ancients and moderns, that the history of Bartholomew lies concealed under another name. That he was one of the twelve apostles is perfectly clear from the Gospel narrative, though nothing more is said of him than the bare mention of his name. In the first three Gospels Philip and Bartholomew are mentioned together; in John’s Gospel, it is Philip and Nathanael. This circumstance has given rise to a very common conjecture that these are but different names for the same person. Nothing was more common than this among the Jews. For example, Simon Peter is called “Bar-jona,” which simply means —the son of Jona. “Bar-timeus” again, means the son of Timeus; and “Bartholomew” is a name of the same class. These are merely relative, not proper, names. From this custom being so general among the Jews, it is often extremely difficult to identify persons in the Gospel history.

Assuming, then, that Nathanael of John is the Bartholomew of the synoptical Gospels, we proceed with what we know of his history. Like the rest of the apostles, he was a Galilean; he was “of Cana in Galilee.” We have seen in a former paper, that he was first conducted by Philip to Christ. As he approached the Lord, Jesus greeted him with the most honourable distinction, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile.” He was, no doubt, a man of true simplicity and integrity of character, and one that “waited for redemption in Israel.” Surprised at our Lord’s most gracious salutation, and wondering how He could know him at first sight, “Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.” Solemn, yet blessed thought! he stood before One —a man —in this world, who knew the secrets of his heart and ways. Nathanael was now fully convinced of the absolute deity of the Messiah, and owns Him in His higher glory as “the Son of God” as well as “the king of Israel.”

The character of Nathanael and his call, are considered by many as being typical of the remnant of Israel, without guile in the latter day. The allusion to the fig tree —the well-known symbol of Israel —confirms this view of the passage; and so does his beautiful testimony, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the king of Israel.” The spared remnant, seen and known by the Lord, will thus confess their faith in Him, as the prophets most fully show. And all those who thus own the Messiah shall see His universal glory as the Son of man, according to Psalm 8. That coming day of widespread glory is anticipated by our Lord in His concluding remarks to Nathanael: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” Then will the heavens and the earth be joined together, as if by Jacob’s ladder. But we must now return to the direct history of our apostle.

The most distinct and conclusive passage as to his apostleship is John 21. There we find him in company with the other apostles, to whom our Lord appeared at the Sea of Tiberias after His resurrection. “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples,” who probably were Andrew and Philip.

There is a generally received tradition that Bartholomew travelled as far as India preaching the gospel —probably to that part of India, which lies nearest to Asia. After travelling in different places, seeking to spread Christianity, he at last reached Albanople in Armenia the Great, a place overgrown with idolatry. There he was arrested in the midst of his labours by the governor of the place, and condemned to be crucified. The date is not certainly known.

MATTHEW —called also Levi, the son of Alpheus; but not the same person, we believe, as Alpheus the father of James. (Matt. 10:3, Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27 -29) Though a Roman officer, he was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” and probably a Galilean, but of what city or tribe we are not informed. Before his call to follow the Messiah, he was a publican, or tax-gatherer, under the Romans. He seems to have been stationed at Capernaum, a maritime town on the Sea of Galilee. He was what we should call a customhouse officer. It was in this capacity that Jesus found him. When he passed by, He saw him “sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, ‘Follow me’. And he arose and followed him.” But before proceeding with the history of Matthew, we would say a few words on the character of his occupation, as it is so frequently mentioned in the New Testament, and is really a generic term.

Publicans, properly so called, were persons who farmed the Roman taxes or revenue. They were, usually, persons of wealth and credit. It was considered among the Romans an honourable position, and generally conferred on Roman knights. Sabinus (it is said, father of the Emperor Vespasian) was the publican of the Asiatic provinces. They employed under them inferior officers, and these, generally, were natives of the provinces in which the taxes were collected; to this class Matthew no doubt belonged.

These petty officers were everywhere notorious for their fraudulent exactions; but to the Jews they were especially odious. The Jews looked upon themselves as a freeborn people, and that they had this privilege direct from God Himself. “We be Abraham’s seed,” was their boast, “and were never in bondage to any man.” Consequently, the Roman tax gatherers were the visible proofs of their slavery, and of the degraded state of their nation. This was the chain that galled them, and betrayed them into many acts of rebellion against the Romans. Hence it was that the Jews abhorred publicans. They looked upon them as traitors and apostates, and as the ready tools of the oppressor. Besides, they were most arbitrary and unjust in their taxations; and having the law on their side, they could enforce payment. It was in their power to examine each case of goods exported or imported, and to assess the alleged value in the most vexatious way. We may gather, from what John said to them, that they overcharged whenever they had an opportunity. “And he said unto them, Exact no more than is appointed you.” (Luke 3:13) See also the case of Zaccheus. (Luke 19: 9)

Surely these things were more than enough to bring the whole class into the greatest detestation everywhere. But we will confine ourselves to what we learn of them in the New Testament. The spirit of truth never exaggerates. There we find them classed with sinners; (Matt. 9:11; 11:19) with harlots; (Matt. 21:31, 32) with heathen. (Matt. 18:17) As a class, they were regarded as outside, not only from the privileges of the sanctuary, but also from the privileges of civil society. And yet, notwithstanding all these disadvantages, their ranks furnished some of the earliest disciples both of John the Baptist and of our Lord. They had less hypocrisy than those who were esteemed better; they had no conventional morality; and they had no false religion to unlearn. These things may be fairly argued from the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. (Luke 18) Conventional goodness is a great hindrance to the soul’s salvation. It is difficult for such to take the place of a lost, ruined sinner that grace may have a free course and do her blessed, saving, gracious work. He who would be justified of God, must take the publican’s place, and offer up the publican's prayer, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” We now return to the history of our apostle.

With great readiness Matthew obeyed the call of Jesus. His lucrative situation was at once given up; and his conversion, so thorough and manifest, was accompanied with much blessing to others. There was a great awakening and interest among his own class. “And Levi made a great feast in his own house, and there was a great company of publicans and others that sat down with them.” A feast is the symbol of joy and rejoicing —the immediate effect of a hearty surrender to Christ. It is worthy of note that in his own Gospel he gives his well-known name, but neither of the other evangelists speaks of “Matthew the publican.” Along with the others he was chosen one of the twelve. From that time he continued with the Lord like the rest of the apostles. Blessed privilege! —“a familiar attendant on His person, a spectator of His public and private life, a hearer of His sayings and discourses, a beholder of His miracles, a witness of His resurrection and ascension to glory.” This he does not testify, though he saw it. Matthew was with the other apostles on the day of Pentecost, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. How long he continued in Judæa after that event, we are not informed. His Gospel is supposed to be the first that was written, and has a special reference to Israel.

Ethiopia is generally assigned as the scene of his apostolic labours. There, some say, by preaching and miracles, he mightily triumphed over error and idolatry, was the means of the conversion of many, appointed spiritual guides and pastors to confirm and build them up, and to bring others over to the faith; and there finished his course. But the sources of information on these points cannot be trusted.

THOMAS. The apostle Thomas was duly called by our Lord to the apostleship and is duly mentioned in the various apostolic lists. Of his birthplace or parents we are not informed in scripture, but tradition says he was born at Antioch. John relates all that is known of him with any certainty. But though our knowledge of Thomas be thus limited, there is no character among the apostles more distinctly marked than his. In fact, his name has become, both in the church and in the world, a synonym for doubting and unbelieving. It is said of a famous artist, when asked to produce a portrait of the apostle Thomas that he placed a rule in his hand for the due measuring of evidence and argument. His mind was thoughtful, meditative, and slow to believe. He looked at all the difficulties of a question, and inclined to take the dark side of things. But we will glance for a moment at the portrait, which the pen of inspiration has drawn of him in the three following passages.

1) In John 11 his true character distinctly appears. He evidently viewed the proposed journey of our Lord into Judæa with the darkest forebodings. “Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go that we may die with him.” In place of believing that Lazarus would be raised from the dead, he feared that both the Lord and His disciples would meet their own death in Judæa. He could see nothing arising from such a journey but complete disaster. Nevertheless, he does not seek to hinder the Lord from going, like the other disciples. This too is characteristic. He had deep affection for the Lord, and such was his devotedness that, though the journey should cost all of them their lives, he was willing to go.

2) The second time referred to was after the Last Supper. (John 14) Our Lord had been speaking of going away, and of the home He would prepare for them in heaven, and that He would come again and receive them unto Himself, so that where He was they should be also. “And whither I go ye know,” He added, “and the way ye know.” But to our apostle’s mind these beautiful promises only awaken dark thoughts of the unseen, unknown, future. “Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” Evidently he was eager to go, and earnest in his inquiries, but he wanted to be sure of the way before taking the first step. “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” So long as the eye is fixed on Christ, we cannot make a false step. It is the single eye that receives the light of heaven, which sheds its radiance over the whole path.

3) The third time was after the resurrection. (John 20) He was absent when the Lord appeared the first time to the disciples. When they told him that they had seen the Lord, he obstinately refused to believe what they said. From what he says, we may fairly gather that he had seen the Lord on the cross, and that the overwhelming sight had produced a deep impression on his mind. “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” The following Lord’s Day, when the disciples were assembled, Jesus appeared, and stood in the midst of them —His own place as the centre of the assembly. He again saluted them in the same words of peace, “Peace be unto you.” But He at once turned to Thomas, as if he had been the main object of His appearing that day. “Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.” The effect on Thomas was immediate: all his doubts were removed, and in true orthodox faith he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God.” “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Some have thought that the faith of Thomas in this instance rises far above all the other disciples, and that nothing higher in testimony ever dropped from apostolic lips. This opinion, though a common one, cannot be founded on the general context. Christ, in reply to Thomas, pronounces those more blessed who saw not, and yet believed. It can scarcely be called even Christian faith, as our Lord evidently hints. Christian faith is believing in Him whom we have not seen —walking by faith, not by sight.

Thomas, we have no doubt, represents the slow, unbelieving mind of the Jews in the last days, who will believe when they see. (Zech. 12) He was not present at the first gathering of the saints after the resurrection, the reason why we are not told. But who can estimate the blessing that may be lost because of absence from the sanctioned meetings of the saints? He missed the blessed revelations of Christ as to relationship, “My Father, and your Father; my God, and your God.” His faith is not connected with the position of son-ship. “He has not the communications of the efficacy of the Lord’s work,” as one has said, “and of the relationship with His Father into which Jesus brings His own, the church. He has peace, perhaps, but he has missed all the revelation of the church’s position. How many souls —saved souls, even —are there in these two conditions?”

The future apostolic labours of Thomas, and the end of his life, are so filled with traditions or legends, that we know nothing certainly. Some say he laboured in India and some in Persia. His martyrdom, it is said, was occasioned by a lance, and is still commemorated by the Latin Church on December 21, by the Greek Church on October 6, and by the Indians on July 1.

JAMES —the son of Alpheus. The identification of the Jameses, the Marys, and the Lord’s brethren, has long been a difficult point with critics. This would not be the place even to refer to their theories and arguments. But after looking at different sides of the question, we still believe that our apostle is the James who was a principal man in the church at Jerusalem —who is the author of “The General Epistle of James” —who is also called the Lord’s brother and surnamed “the just,” and “the less,” probably because he was low in stature. Identification of persons is extremely difficult in such histories, from the habit, so common among the Jews, of calling near relations, brothers and sisters, and from nearly all of them having two or more names.